Are Science and Religion Complementary Perspectives?

Eugene Goodheart provides an eloquent defense of the non-literalist, religious imagination before the aggressive atheism of several of today’s leading neo-Darwinists. But the position that he takes—that science and religion represent “complementary perspectives” serving different, yet equally permanent needs—is undermined by two fundamental problems. First, the claim that science can only tell us how the natural world works, while religion offers meaning, value, and moral guidance, may hold true when science is understood on the model of mathematical physics, but not when evolutionary biology and its derivatives are considered. Even Stephen Jay Gould, whose famous defense of science and religion as “nonoverlappling magisteria” resembles Goodheart’s, acknowledges that the case of evolutionary biology is profoundly different. Here evolutionary fact and moral values bleed together obscuring the boundary between science and religion. Second, religion and legacy of the religious imagination embedded in our culture, lose their ability to provide meaning, morals, and consolation when core elements of religious teaching are no longer believed to be true.

Lessons from European population genetic databases: comparing the law in Estonia, Iceland, Sweden and the United Kingdom

The advent of large-scale, population genetic databases (PGDs) in several countries around the world marks a significant development in human DNA banking and genetic research. The European countries that have led the way in the development of PGDs are Iceland, Sweden, Estonia and the U.K. In legal terms, the emergence of PGDs has been far from straightforward as such projects pose a range of difficult and complex issues for the law to address. This article canvasses the current law in Iceland, Estonia, Sweden and the U.K. on four fundamental issues of principle pertaining to PGDs, in order to illustrate the difficulties that have emerged around PGDs, highlight key areas of legal concern, and shed light on possible ways forward. It compares and contrasts the differing legal positions and lawmakers' responses to date in these four European countries that have established PGDs or are seeking to do so. The four fundamental issues examined are: (1) consent, especially for secondary research purposes; (2) ownership of biological samples, data and databases; (3) the rights of certain third parties to gain access to, and to use, PGD biological samples and data; and (4) benefit sharing, including the provision of feedback and genetic counselling to participants. This analysis may offer some guidance for policymakers in other jurisdictions where PGDs have been proposed or are being established.     

Clinical and Autopsy Characteristics of Fatal Methamphetamine Toxicity in Australia

Characteristics of death attributed solely to methamphetamine toxicity (MT, n = 93) by forensic pathologists were examined and compared to cases of multiple drug toxicity (MDT, n = 634). The mean age of MT cases was 36.7 years, and 86.0% were male. Strenuous activity was reported in 12.9%. The most common witness observations were: collapse (60.3%), difficulty in breathing (36.2%), and hyperthermia (27.6%). MT cases had higher blood methamphetamine (0.54 vs. 0.11 mg/L) and amphetamine (0.04 vs. 0.02 mg/L) concentrations and lower likelihoods for opioids (12.5% vs. 80.9%), hypnosedatives (27.3 vs. 60.7%), antidepressants (14.8 vs. 29.8%), and antipsychotics (9.1 vs. 19.7%). MT cases had significantly heavier hearts than MDT cases (423.4 vs. 385.8 g) and were more likely to have cardiomegaly (37.1 vs. 20.4%) and replacement fibrosis (25.7 vs. 14.5%). The clinical picture was of a sudden cardiac event in a middle‐aged man with a high methamphetamine concentration. Cardiovascular signs of heavy methamphetamine use are frequently seen.     

Education Counts: Turning Crisis Into Opportunity for Adolescents

This essay, adapted from the keynote address delivered at the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges’ 72nd Annual Conference on July 13, 2009, in Chicago, Illinois, focuses on adolescents and education—a strategy that is not only economically sound but also logical, indeed honorable. So just how do we begin to turn the crisis facing too many children and families into opportunity? How do we interrupt, and reroute, that perilous pipeline to prison? How do we help to build off‐ramps from the disastrous destiny that awaits so many young people? How do we regain our leadership role in constructive juvenile justice instead of juvenile incarceration? I believe judges can take a leadership role in addressing these questions. It's our children's future to be sure, but it's ours too. Indeed, it's the very future of our nation that is at stake.